I 






( 



F 685 
.L21 
Copy 1 



ADMISSION OF KANSAS 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. L. Q. C. LAMAR, OF MISSISSIPPI, 

it 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 13, 1S58, 

On the violation of the pledge of the Government that Kansas shall be admitted with or 
without slavery as her constitution may prescribe at the lime of such admission. 



\ 



S 



The House having resolved itself into the Committee of 
the Whole on the state of the Union, and resumed the con- 
sideration of the President's annual message — 

Mr. LAMAR said: 

Mr. Chairman-: It is not my purpose to dis- 
cuss the various questions involved in our Central 
American relations. Should I avail myself of a 
future occasion to do so, I may be forced reluc- 
tantly to dissent from some of the views so ably 
presented by my distinguished colleague, [Mr. 
Quitmax.] However painful this may be to my- 
self, I nevertheless feel confident of his generous 
indulgence, especially when he sees in my course 
only the reflex of his own spirit of independence; 
a spirit which runs like a stream of fire through 
all his acts and writings, which enabled him a 
few years since to light up the ardor of a thousand 
patriots, to fire his countrymen to the assertion of 
their rights, and this day enshrines him in the 
hearts and affections of the people of his State 
without distinction of party. 

Mr. Chairman, any proposition which has for 
its object the advancement and progress of south- 
ern institutions, by equitable means, will always 
commend itself to my cordial approval. Others 
may boast of their widely-extended patriotism, 
and their enlarged and comprehensive love of this 
Union. With me, I confess that the promotion of 
southern institutions is second in importance only 
to the preservation ofsouthern honor. In reading 
her history and studying her character, I delight 
to linger in the contemplation of that stern and 
unbroken confidence with which she has always 
clung to the integrity of her principles and the 
purity of her honor. In that unfortunate division 
■which has separated our country into sections, 
natural causes beyond our control have assigned 
to her the weaker section. A numerical minority 
finds safety and protection alone in the power of 
truth and the invincibility of right. The South, 
standing upon this high ground, has ever com- 
manded the respect of her friends and defied the 
assaults of her enemies. When ruthless major- 
ities have threatened wrong and injustice, their 
hands have been stayed only by the deference 



which the worst spirits unconsciously pay to the 
cause of justice. In the long and bitter contests 
which have marked our internal struggles, the 
South has made but one demand — the Constitu- 
tion of our common country, the claims of jus- 
tice, and the obligations of States; and it is our 
boast to-day, that we can present a record un- 
stained with a single evidence of violated faith or 
attempted wrong. The same regard for truth, 
justice, and honor, which characterizes our inter- 
course with the various sections of our own coun- 
try, furnishes the safest rules for our dealings 
with other countries. As the Constitution is the , 
law of our conduct at home, so let good faith be 
the rule of our conduct abroad. 

If I could do so consistently with the honor 
of my country, I would plant American liberty 
with southern institutions upon every inch of 
American soil. 1 believe that they give to us 
the highest type of civilization known to modern 
times, except in those particulars dwelt upon so 
elaborately and complacently by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Thayek.] In that par- 
ticular form of civilization which causes the pop- 
ulation of a country to emigrate to other lands for 
the means of subsistence, 1 concede to the North 
great superiority over our section. [Laughter.] 
There can be no doubt that New England, and 
especially Massachusetts, is a splendid country 
to emigrate from, and, in this respect, stands 
unrivaled, with perhaps the single exception of 
Ireland. [Laughter.] And right here I desire 
to express my acknowledgments to the gentle- 
man for the very apt and classical comparison 
which he instituted between his section and the 
officina gentium. It never occurred to me before, 
but since he has mentioned it, I must confess to 
the resemblance in many respects between the 
recent emigration from New England and the ir- 
ruption of the Goths and Vandals. [Laughter.] 
It is also due to candor that I should say that the 
gentleman's vindication of the emigrant aid so- 
cieties places the objects and motives of that en- 
terprise upon more defensible grounds than we 
of the South supposed to exist. For one, I am 



\ 



perfectly satisfied that the tiling was demanded 
by necessity, and has resulted in benefit to all the 
parties concerned; that the country was benefited 
by getting rid of the population, and the | 
lation greatly benefited by leaving the country. 
[Laughter.] 

To return from this digression; while I am a 
southern man, thoroughly imbued with the spirit 
of my section, 1 will never consent to submit the 
fiir of our noble institutions to the hands of ma- 
rauding bands, or violate their sanctity by ident- 
ifying their progress with the success of unlaw- 
ful expeditions. And most especially, when 1 see 
tliem receiving the countenance and sanction of a 
distinguished Senator, whose course on the Kan- 
sas question is so fresh in our recollection. 

Before I consent to any new schemes of terri- 
torial acquisition, to be effected, as usual, by the 
prowess of southern arms, and the contribution 
of southern blood and treasure, I desire the ques- 
tion of the south 's right to extend her institutions 
into territory already within the Union, practical I y 
and satisfactorily settled by the legislation of this 
Congress. These territorial acquisitions, so far, 
have been to the South like the far-famed fruit 
which grows upon the shores of the accursed sea, 
beautiful to sight but dust and ashes to the lips. 
We learn from the President's message that the 
people of Kansas having reached the number that 
would justify her admission into the Union as a 
State, site has, by her duly constituted authorities, 
taken all the steps necessary to the attainment 
of this object, and will, in a short time, demand 
the redemption of the pledge of the Government, 
that she " shall be admitted, with or without 
slavery, as her constitution may prescribe, at the 
time of such admission." But in advance of 
her application, we are informed by the distin- 
guished author of the Kansas bill, and gentlemen 
upon this lloor, that her case has been prejudged, 
and her claims rejected. This presents a question 
before whose colossal magnitude the wrongs of 
Walker, and the criminality of Paulding, sink 
into insignificance. 

I propose to examine into the grounds upon 
which this violation of plighted faith is attempted 
to be justified. The ground principally relied 
upon is, that the constitution which she presents 
was framed by a convention not called in pursu- 
ance of an enabling or authorizing act of Congress, 
but on the mere motion of the Territorial Legis- 
lature. .Now, sir, apart from the practice of the 
Government, which has not been uniform on this 
subject, I, forone,Ldmit, to the fullest extent, the 
propriety and importance of such an act of Con- 
gress. 1 have always held that the sovereignty 
over these Territories was vested in the people of 
these United States; that the power of legislation 
in reference to them belonged to Congress, and 
that this power was limited only by the Consti- 
tution and the nature of the trust, and that before 
the inhabitants of the Territory are competent to 
form a constitution and a State government, it is 
necessary that Congress should first withdraw its 
authority over the Territories. The necessity of 
an enabling act, I concede to the fullest extent. 
Whenever individuals in a Territory undertake to 
i"ni-iii a State government, without the previous 
assent of Congress, they arc, in my opinion, 
guilty of gross usurpation and flagrant disregard 
of the rights of the United States and the author- 



ity of Congress. Under such circumstances, it 

becomes a question purely of discretion with Con- 

. whether to remand them to their territorial 

condition, or to waive the want of authority, and 

I y the proceedings as regular and lawful. 

The question now presents itself, do the cir- 
cumstances attending the application of Kansas 
for admission into the Union present such a case ? 
Was [he convention atLecompton an unauthor- 
ized and revolutionary assemblage', usurping the 
sovereignty of the State, and throwing off unlaw- 
fully the authority of the United States? 1 hold 
that it was a convention of the people, called 
by the regularly constituted authority, and with 
the previous assent of Congress. I hold that the 
Kansas bill was an enabling act, vesting the 
Territorial Legislature with power to call such a 
convention. In analyzing the provisions of that 
noble law, we find that it looks to higher objects 
and more enduring results than the mere organi- 
zation of temporary territorial governments for 
Kansas and Nebraska. It looks beyond the ter- 
ritorial status; it provides for its admission as a 
State; and in express terms pledges the faith of 
Government that it shall be received into the 
Union " with or without slavery, as its constitu- 
tion may prescribe at the time of such ad mission. ' ' 
It also declares the " intent and meaning of this 
act" to be, " not to legislate slavery into any Ter- 
ritory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but 
to leave the people thereof perfectly free loform 
and regulate their institutions in thjpir own way, 
subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States and the provisions of this act." 

How, had the bill stopped here — had it gone no 
further — there might be some ground for the ob- 
jection that additional legislation by Congress is 
necessary. For the bill might guaranty to the 
people admission as a Stale, and the right of form- 
ing theirconstitution, and yet reserve to Congress 
the all-important power of determining when the 
people had attained a sufficient maturity and 
growth to fit them for the enjoyment and exercise 
of this highest and most glorious right of self- 
government. It might reserve to itself the power 
of determining who should constitute such a peo- 
ple — who should be the qualified voters — and in 
short, of prescribing all the steps preliminary to a 
call of the convention of the people. I say Con- 
gress might well have reserved all these high and 
delicate discretionary powers to herself, and there 
might be some ground for claiming them in behalf 
of Congress, had the bill stopped with the clause 
which I have quoted. 

But, unfortunately for the enemies of Kansas, 
the bill does not stop here. It goetS on to confer 
the most ample powers on the Territorial Legis- 
lature. In section twenty-two, after providing 
for the first election, it says: 

' ; IJiit thereafter the times, places, and manner of holding 
ami conducting all elections by the people, shall be pre- 
scribed le, law." 

Again, after providing for qualifications of 
voters fur the first election, it says: 

'■' Hut the qualification of voters, anil of holding office, 
at all subsequent elections, shall he such as shall he pre- 
serib&d by the Territorial Legislature." 

In section twenty-four, it is further enacted that 
the legislative power of the Territory shall ex- 
tend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent 
with the Constitution 



Tin > iken together, embrace the en- 

bjectin dispute, and vest all powers con- 

1th in the lature. 

\v a id iv: 111 
Imn tn determine the time when a 
■ ■ condition of terri- 
torial pu| ig ini that ol I ■ ereignty, of 
calling a convention of the people, prescribing the I 

cation of voters, and arrangirj 
details preparatory to the applicatipn for 
sion as i indeed, sir, according to the 

tied maxims of civil law, no people can 
undertake to form pr abolish a constitute 
cept in obedience to the sumfnonsor im itation of 
the existing legislative authority, [t was in tiii:; 
iat Congress has deleg ited these high and 
important matters of li gislative < ! e cretion to the 
territorial government. You may take up any 
enabling | jress.and you cannot 

find a provision in it which is not involved either 
in the specific grants or general delegation of 
powers contained in the Kansas bill. 

The conclusion which the language of the bill 
authorizes, is strengthened and sustained by its 
history. "When this bill was first reported, it 
contained the usual power, which you find in all 
territorial ressional vejto, re* 

or repeal of the territorial laws; but it was stricken 
out, and the 1 ill became a law, with ho i • 
tion of power to Congi : 

limiting the broad grant of jurisdiction to the Ter- 
ritorial I 

legislation. " If the langi the bill and its 

history could Icav to the correct- 

ness nt' this construction, it would at once, be re- 
moved by a recurrence to the debates when the 
bill was pending in Congress. The speeches of 
both friends and foes are replete with the proof 
6F what I say. I could quote from the author of 
the bill, and from its supporters in this House, to 
show tb ectwas to transfer to the people 

of Kansas the entire control over her internal 
affairs, including slavery, untrammeled by any 
congressional legislation. But, sir, it is not ne- 
cessary. 

It maybe said that, if* this construction be true, 
the bill embraced two entirely distinct and dis- 
similar subje ganizing a Territory, and 
the other providing for the admission of a State. 
Well, sir, if I am not mistaken, this very objec- 
tion was made', to wit: that the bill was against 
all regular parliamentary procedure. And a dis- 
tinguished gentleman from Missouri, after ex- 
hausting his powers of invective, like a man in 
fight reserving his most potent weapon for the last 
blow, threw at the bill an immense word, which 
sent our venerable Secretary of State stunned and 
reeling to the dictionaries. He said it was "am- 
phibological." But the framers of that bill were 
not after parliamentary symmetry or harmony of 
outline. Their object was to settle great questions 
of strife which threatened the integrity of the 
Union; to bind in one compact and durable struc- 
ture the equality of the States, the authority of 
Congress, and the glorious right of self-govern- 
ment; to build a platform on which the rights of 
every section in the Union might rise above the 
turbulent waters of sectional strife, and proudly 
defy all the attacks of fanaticism. In confirma- 
tion of the view I have taken, 1 desire to invoke 
tb» authority of the distinguiyhed publicist and 



jurist who is now lending hi;; influence to the en- 
• of the South and of Kansas. Air. Robert 
J. Walker, in his inaugural address as Governor 
of Kansas, speaking of the Lecompton conven- 
tion, a 

'• That convention is now abou 
under the call of the Territorial Legislature ertftl n. i 
still recognized by the authority of Cong 

by it. in [he i age of li vanta law, 

with full power to make such an The Terri- 

i : issi mblihgthi (vera 

: . . .■. 

Again, he says: 

■■ The people of Kansas, therij nr" invited by i!>e hi 
• participate, Ci 
and fail I ction of delegates to frame ;> constitu- 

tion and State g ircrnme'ni. Tli 

i , it of 

ige; bin it can ii that 

duty. Throughout our whole Union, and wherever 
i i - who abstain from tin ixei 
of voting anihorize those who do vote I i el for them ia 
that coi the fi lund, 

under the law and ' 'on altution, where there i- no fraud or 
he aci hi ill" majority of those who do vote. 
as though all had pa; 

It is true that the distinguishi d author of the 
bill denies that it confers any such power. And 
yet the very ground upon his op- 

position to the i ris t>> 

break the moral foree ofthis denial. 1 1 i 
is, that the Kansas bill intended that tile consti- 
tution, v/h- 

direct vote of the people; that this was its ii 
and meaning. Nov.-,. far as 

to prescribe the mode ofadopi ution, 

it certainly contemplated the' framing of it. A 
constitution cannot be submitted to the people until 
it is formed. 

Having demonstrated that this convention, as- 
sembled to form the constitution, possessed (;\'<-ry 
attribute heretofore regarded requisite to con: 1 
its work effectu illy, it is easy to refute the 1 o 1 
tion that before ii can present a valid title to I 
Congress, it should be first submitted, for ado - 
tion or rejection, to the people; not to the people 
whose delegates framed it, but. to them and such 
settlers as mery have come into the Territory during 
its progress to completion ! In order to show how 
empty and ridiculous are the pretexts for rejecting 
Kansas, I propose to give this argument in the 
language of its author. Speaking of what the 
President says of the convention at Lecompton, 
the distinguished gentleman to whom I refer, [Mr. 
Douglas,] says: 

" Tim President docs not say, lie docs not mean thai this 
convention had ever been recognized I 
the United States as legal or valid. On the contrary, he 
knows, us we here know, that diirinji the last Congress I 
reported a hill from the < lommittee on Territories to author- 
ize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution 
for themselves. Subsequently, the Senator from Georgia 
[.Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute tor my lull, 
which, after having been modified by biai and myself in 
consultation, was passed by the Senate. It is known in the 

country as ' the Toomhs hill.' li authorized the peO] 

Kansas Territory to assembl ntion and form a con- 

stitution preparatory to their adniisi ton into the Union ae a 
Stale. That bill, a i- well known, wis defeated in the 
Uouse of Representatives. It matters not, for the purpo - 
this argument, what wa the reason of its defeat. \\ h 
the reason was n political em'; whether i, bad i 

the tli ■ 

I'open the Blavbry question ; whether it 
i that the hill would not he fairly carried i 
it was because there were not people enough in Kan 
justify the formation of a State ; do ma\tei what the reason 



was. the House of Representatives refused to pass thatbUl, 
and thus denied t>> the people of Kansas the right to form a 
constitution ami State government at this time." 

Proceedings then to discuss the power of the 
Territorial legislature to call a convention, he 
concludes as follows: 

youmpply these principles t<; the Kansas convention, 
you Mud thai h bad no pow er to • 1 * > any acl as a convention 
forming a government ; you 6nd that the act calling it was 
null and void from the beginning; yon find that tin 1 Legis- 
lature could confer no power whatever on the convention." 

Upon a subsequent occasion, defendinghis posi- 
tion, he says, as follows: 

'• I n . ! contended that a convention, consti- 

tuted in obedience to an enabling act of Congress previously 
giving assent, is a constitutional body of men, wish power 
and authority to institute government ; but that a conven- 
sembled under an act of the I erritorial Legislature, 
without tin- assent of Congress previously given, lias no 
to institute government." * » * * 

••Tnis was my position in regard to the effect of an en- 
abling act. I then went On to show that, then' having 
been no enabling acl passed tor Kansas, the Lecouipton 
convention was irregular." 

It is rather late in the day for this gentleman to 
begin to rectify such irregularities. We need go 
no further back than California. She was be- 
gotten by a military general, and forced into the 
family of States by the Cesarean operation of an 
executive accoucheur. [Laughter.] Yes, sir, with- 
out any previous assent of Congress, without 
even the authority of a Territorial Legislature; 
without any census; a land of roaming adventur- 
ers was lugged into the Union over all law and 
precedent, as the coequal of the oldest State of 
this Union, because it happened to be a free State. 
What then said this stickler for enabling acts? 
How spoke the putative father of these latter-day 
doctrines? Mr. Douglas said, in lt<50: 
"I come now to consider California as a State. The 
OOW presented, whether we will receive her as 
one of the States of this Union; ami, sir, why should we not 
The proceedings, it is said, in the formation of her 
: utiori and Sts lent have been irregular. If 

this be hi fault is it? Not the people of California, 

for you have refused, for the period of two years, to pass a 
law in pursuance of which the proceedings would have 
. H;iivh. you will not punish the people of 
< !j I fornia for your own sins— sins of omission as well as of 

• 

•• :t will he recollected by every Senator present — I trust 

the fact will not be forgotten— that more than one year ago, 

; ;ht in a bill to authorize the people of California to 

form a Slate constitution, and to come into the Union. Had 

that lull passed, the proceedings would have' been regular, 

'• Well, the hill was di feated, and the people of Califor- 
nia, acting upon tin ions, and relying upon the 
precedents cited, have 1 formed a constitution and presented 
for admission. Now they are to be told that 
thej cannot be recen ed, because Congress failed to pass a 
Iftw, and the are irregular without it. I do not 
i,. I what is meant by the irregularity of 
proceedings. I have examined the precedents in all 
have been admitted into the 
n in. I will not gboverthem 
nls show that there is no 
I rule upon th : subject. There are several eases 

i no previous a sent of < longress, 
ii" c no qualifications for voters prescribed. 

Then e ttly can be no irregularity." 

•■ I hold that the p ople of i 

had a right to do Achat they have done— yea, they had a 
moral, political, and legal right to do all they have done." 

How different is his language to Kansas ! The 
very refusal of Congress to pass an enabling act 
for California is urged as a justification of her 
monstrous proceedings, and is presented as her 
strongest title to admission. But when Kansas 
applies, the same action by Congress is relied 
upon as an insurmountable obstacle to her admis- 



sion. The California convention had the perfect 
right, moral, legal, and political, to do what they 
have done. But the Kansas convention, although 

acting under an act of Congress which pledged 
the faith of the nation to her admission as a State, 

I acting under a regular and legal call of her people, 
every safeguard provided, is held to have no po wet- 
to do any act as a convention forming a govern- 
ment; that the act calling it was null and void 
from the beginning, arid that Congress, in refusing 
to pass an enabling act, (no matter what the mo- 
tive,) denied to the people the right to form a con- 

; stitution and State government. 

Sir, how are we to reconcile such glaring incon- 
sistency ? There is but one solution, and every 
day is riveting it in the southern mind; and that 
is, where a State applies for admission with a con- 
stitution excluding slavery, no irregularity can 
be too enormous, no violation of precedent too 

1 marked, no disregard of constitutional procedure 
too palpable, no outrage can be too enormous for 

! its admission as a State into the Union; but when 

: a State applies for admission with slavery in its 

I constitution, no excuse can be too trivial, no pre- 
; tense too paltry and ignoble, to keep her out. Sir, 
! the direct tendency, and with some the avowed 
! object, of all this opposition, is to delay the ad- 
mission of Kansas until she becomes a free State. 

I I do not charge this on that gentleman. But 
; why does he pursue this course ? It is but an 

' offshoot of that damnable policy which has been 
i preying upon the vitals of the South for the last 
forty years— that of buying peace for the turbu- 
1 lent and fanatical at the expense of the quiet and 
! orderly. When Missouri applies for admission, 
! Abolitionism gets up an excitement about .slave 
! territory. For peace sake Congress overleaps 
: the Constitution, and marks out a line beyond 
' which slavery shall not i, r o. Abolitionism raves 
| to be heard in Congress about slavery generally, 
and for the sake of peace Congress allows it "to. 
fill the Capitol with Abolition petitions which it 
has no power on earth to grant. Abolitionism 
hires armed bands to go and drive slaveholders 
out of Kansas, and Robert J. Walker, for peace 
sake, would hand it over to them. To pacify 
a band of rebels, reeking with the blood of south- 
ern men, women, and children, to whom he is 
indebted for all he is, he turns against his bene- 
factors, he violates his pledge, abuses his trust, 
disgraces his office, truckles to the vile, tramples 
on the just, and scatters the firebrand of discord 
throughout Kansas, the Union, and the Capitol. 
! And Stephen A. Douglas, who was for lassoing 
California and dragging her into the Union over 
all law and precedent, and the violated rights 
of fifteen of the sovereign States of this Union, 
would now subject Kansas to all the rigors of the 
Inquisition to keep her out of the Union. 

But we are told that it is a Contempt of the au- 
thority of the people of Kansas — that it is an in- 
road upon popular sovereignty to withhold from 
them a revision of their constitution. Sir, the au- 
thority of the people is fully recognized; popular 
sovereignty, as a principle, is fully enforced when 
an opportunity is afforded to the legal voters to 
deposit their votes for delegates to a convention. 
Are not those delegates the people's representa- 
tives ? Is there a lawyer present who would teach 
his client that the acts of an authorized agent arc 
invalid if not submitted for ratification to the prin- 



cipal ? Would he tell them that such acts unsub- 
mitted would be insulting to the principal's dig- 
nity, or intrusive upon his prerogatives ? Would 
you say that no respect should be paid to the acts, 
or to the principal himself, if he suffered therrj to 
go forth as his own, unratified ? The truth lies just 
m the opposite direction. "The right of electing 
del< gates to a convention, "in the language of the 
profbltndest writer on the philosophy of govern- 
ment, " places the powers of the Government as 
fully in the mass of the community, as they would 
be had they assembled, made, and executed the 
laws themselves without the intervention of agents 
or representatives." 

The people act in their sovereign capacity when 
they elect delegates; and the deh gates thus elect- 
ed, and convened, are, for all practical purposes, 
identical with the people. Sir, I take higher 
grounds. I hold that the highest embodiment of 
sovereignty, the most in posing political assem- 
blage known to our constitution and laws, is a 
convention of the people legally assembled, not 
en masse, for such an assemblage is unknown in 
our representative system, but by their delegates, 
legally elected. When such a body, with no de- 
clared limitation upontheir powers, are deputed to 
form a constitution, and they execute their trust, 
the constitution, ipso facto, becomes the supreme 
law of the land, unquestionable and unchangeable 
by any power on earth, save that which ordained 
it. This is no novel doctrine. It has the sanction 
of the wisest and greatest men known to Ameri- 
can history. Mr. Calhoun, speaking of a con- 
vention of the people, says it implied "a meeting 
of the people, either by themselves or by dele- 
gates chosen for the purpose in their high sover- 
eign character. It is, in a word, a meeting of the 
people in the majesty of their power — in that in 
which they may rightfully make or abolish con- 
stitutions, and put up and down governments, at 
their pleasure. (Calhoun's Works, vol. 2, page 
612.) Our present Chief Magistrate, in standing 
by the action of the Lecompton constitution, is 
only acting in accordance with his opinions long 
since recorded. In the debate on the veto power, 
he said: 

"The Senator [Mr. Clay] asks, why has not the veto 
been given to the President on acts of conventions held for 
the purpose ofamendiug our constitutions? If it be neces- 
sary to restrain Congress, it is equally necessary to restrain 
conventions. The answer to this argument is equally easy. 
It would he absurd to grant an appeal through the interven- 
tion of the veto to the people themselves against their own 
acts] They create conventions by virtue of their own 
undelegated and inalienable sovereignty ; and when they 
speak, their servants, whether legislative, judicial, or exec- 
utive, must be silent." 

Such was the convention of Lecompton, and 
the constitution it presents was established under 
laws, Federal and territorial, to which every man 
in Kansas (except rebels) has given his consent. 
These laws direct the election, prescribe the order 
of it, the qualification of voters, and the times of 
holding the meeting, and the duties and qualifica- 
tions of the presiding officer. In this way the dele- 
gates were elected. They met; and upon mature 
deliberation framed a constitution — a constitution 
republican in form, and securing to the people of 
Kansas all those great institutions of freedom 
which have ever been regarded as the only and 
surest bulwarks of civil liberty. Violating no law, 
inconsistent with no principle of the Federal Con- 
stitution, it preserves and guaranties to the peo- 



ple of Kansas all the»great agencies of freedom, 
the right of habeas corpus, trial by jury, freedom 
of the press and speech, and liberty ofconscience, 
as inviolate and pure as when "they were first 
given to us, baptized in the blood of our revolu- 
tionary fathers. Now, sir, can a greater insult be 
offered to the understanding of the Amcric 
pie than to say thata constitution thus established 
would gain anything of credit or sanctity by a 
ratification like that contended for? I grant that 
the people, through the legislature, may reserve 
to themselves the right of ratification, or the del- 
egates may recognize it in the constitution itself; 
and in either case a ratification wou'd become 
necessary to the validity of the instrument; but 
without those terms it would become absolute as 
soon as sanctioned by the delegates. 

I go further. I boldly maintain that wisdom, 
prudence, and policy demand that the delegates 
should be entirely un trammeled in framing the 
fundamental law. The people in mass cannot 
deliberate upon a constitution, ad opt what is good, 
and amend what is faulty in it. They must adopt 
or reject it, in the entire; and thus, on account of 
objections to a single clause, they might reject the 
most admirable constitution ever devised by the 
wisdom of man. The radical error which under- 
lies the whole argument of these gentlemen is 
this: they assume that there is a general agree- 
ment of opinion, a collective sentiment of the peo- 
ple, as a unit, as to what shall be the principles 
and provisions of their fundamental law, and that 
this common sentiment is to be ascertained only 
by a direct vote of the people. And yet, sir, such 
a course might result in a grave and capil 
sion. If a method could be devised for collecting 
I the opinion of each citizen upon each clause of 
a constitution, the diversities of sentiment would 
! be equal to the number of voters, and, perhaps, 
I greater. The theory of ratification, however, does 
i not allow to the people the right of framing a 
j constitution, or even offering amendments and 
i modifications. They can only, like a witness on 
cross-examination, answer "yea" or "nay." 
And I repeat, a constitution which might stand 
an imperishable monument of human v 
could be voted down by an immense majority, of 
WhicK each individual member might be in an 
actual minority on the particular subject-matter 
of his dissent. Such a process, so far from evok- 
ing the general pervading sentiment of a people 
as to what shall be their fundamental law, may 
signally fail in eliciting the true view of a single 
individual. 

Sir, I admit that a direct vote of the people is a 
fair test of their will, when you submit to them a 
single isolated proposition, such as the question 
of excluding slavery submitted by the Kansas con- 
vention. But whether it is the best mode or not 
depends upon circumstances. It depends, for in- 
stance, upon the number voting on the i; 
of ratification as compared with the number who 
vote for delegates!. Now, so far as I have observed , 
the elections in which'the people manifest th 
interest are those in which they are called upon 
to pass upon constitutions and constitutional ques- 
tions. It is not the way the people ebon to 
exercise their right of self-government. In the 
ancient city of Athens, where democratic abso- 
lutism existed in its purest form, the number of 
citizens entitled to vote amounted to about twenty- 



(3 



five thousand persons; and -j'et not more than five 
thousand were generally given on the most inter- 
esting questions. And on questions of ostracism 
six thousand votes were sufficient. If you will 
consult the poll-books of the different States of 
this Union, where men and propositions claim 
the suffrages of the people at the same time, you 
will generally find that the men get three votes 
where the m gets one. 1 could call at- 

tention to numerous instances of this kind which 
have fallen within my own observation. 

We accordingly find, that nearly all writers on 
governmental and social science, representing 
every class of opinion, (except a few run mad 
red-republicans of Germany and France,) unite 
in condemning this theory of direct appeal to the 
people. Montesquieu, in his " Spirit of Laws," 
speaking of democracy, says: 

"The people, in whom resides the supreme power, ought 
to do of themselves what in; ami, 

what they thi i Inly perform, they must do 

by their ministers. 

"••'('i' extremely well qualified for choosing 

those whom they are to intrust with a part of their author- 
ity. . 

"Should we doubt of the ] riple' natural ability, in re- 
specl to the discernment of merit, we need only easl ii 
on the contini I ctions, made by the 

Athenians and Romans, which nooi 

manage an intricate affairs 
to find but and make a proper u e of place i <,mO- 

! No; as most citizens have a capacity of choosing, 
though ih.y :iendy qualified to lie chds'i 

lough capable of calling others to an account 
for their administration, are ineapaule of the administration 
themselves." 

A distinguished Senator has laid down the 
proposition that, under the power to admit new 
States Congress is forced by a paramount duty 
to sec that the constitution of a State asking ad- 
mission into the Union embodies the will of the 
majority of the people. Sir, I hold that a consti- 
tution presented by the regular and legally con- 
stituted authority is conclusive upon Congress as 
to the will of a people. We will not allow any 
such issue to be presented. We assert the right 
of the people to form their Government; but we 
hold, and 1 think I have already shown, that the 
highest and purest exhibition of their sovereign 
will is a people acting by their own chosen dele- 
gates in convention assembled. The Federal Gov- 
ernment, and half of the States of this Union, 
were formed in this way, and they need no im- 
provement from the constitutional tinkering of 
this day. 

To object that the convention may have abused 
its powers, and that the constitution should be 
submitted to a direct popular vote, in order that it 
may be ascertained whether it accords with the 
will of the people, is to beg the question, and to 
strike at the very root of all constitutional and 
legal authority. It is an objection not to the con- 
stitution of Kansas alone, but to the very genius 
and framework of all representative government. 
Upon the same ground that a constitution framed 
by delegates should be submitted to the people, it 
may also be demonstrated that every law enacted 
by Congress, or by a legislature, and that every 
verdict by a jury, or decision of a court, should 
likewise be submitted for the approval of the 
people. Sir, Q delegate may misrepresent the 
pie, a Senator or Representative may misrep- 
resent his constituents, but the remedy does not 
lie here m this central powsr of the Republic, 



(more liable to abuse than any other,) it lies in 
the hands of the local constituency, to whom the 
representatives are immediately responsible. And 
here lies the efficacy and power of our form of 
Government. The direct responsibility of our 
rulers to their constituents, the right of sufFi 
among the people, added by that great moral en- 
gine of freedom, the liberty of the press, are 
the vis medicatrix nalurce of our political system, 
sufficient to remedy every disorder and thmw off 
every impurity, without resorting to violent ir 
ularity and revolutionary action. 

When a State applies for admission, Congress 
is bound to subject her to no restrictions except 
such as Congress may constitutionally impose 
upon the States already composing the Union. 
There is but one limitation which you arc bound 
to impose, and that is, that her form of govern? 
ment should be republican. But, under the power 
to guaranty a republican form of government, 
you have not the right to range with unlimited 
discretion through every provision of her consti- 
tution, interfere with her internal and local distri- 
bution of political power, adjust questions of ma- 
jority and minority, lay down arbitrary rules of 
your own as to what constitutes republican gov- 
ernment, and, by compelling her to conform to 
them, substitute the will of Congress for Iters as 
to what shall be her fundamental law. Are not 
the constitutions of the original thirteen States 
pretty fair tests as to what constitutes republican 
government? Can any one say that the Kansas 
constitution, tried by this test, the only one which 
you can rightfully apply, is not a republican form 
of government? Where is the feature in it con- 
trary to our republican institutions, or repugnant 
to the paramount Constitution of the Union ? 

We are told by a distinguished gentleman that 
he would " pass over forms, ceremonies, and 
organizations, to get down deep to the will of the 
people." Sir, the will of the people can only be 
obtained through these forms, ceremonies, and 
organizations; and the structure of our Govern- 
ment is intended to provide these forms and or- 
ganizations, through which the people can speak 
authentically and authoritatively. What can he 
mean by passing over and disregarding these 
forms? .The Constitution of the United States is 
a form. Times, places, and manner of holding 
elections, and qualifications of franchise, are but 
forms, through which the people exercise their 
power. This matchless Government, springing 
from the Constitution and the division of power 
between the Federal and State Governments, is 
but an organization. Would he pass overall these 
to get down to what he sees proper to consider 
the will of the people? The doctrine is mon- 
strous, dangerous, and disorganizing. It gives to 
the action of regular government no more author- 
ity than belongs to an ordinary, voluntary assem- 
blage of citizens, outside of the Constitution and 
law. If these views be correct, we had better, at 
once, tear down this splendid fabric of American 
architecture, and discard conventions, Legisla- 
tures, and Congresses, as inconvenient, cumbrous 
superfluities, and resort at once to the democratic 
absolutism of Athen3. The doctrine lias been in 
Europe omnipotent for pulling down forms, 
monies, and organizations, but powerless for re- 
construction; like those serpents in the East, 
which, while thfsy inflict a death-blow, breathe 



out their own life in the wound of their dying 
victim. 

We were told by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 
Cox,] that the constitution is not republican in 
form, because it prohibits amendment] alteration, 
or change, until after 1864, and then hampers the 
perfectly free action of the people by requiring a 
majority of two thirds of the Legislature to con- 
cur before they will allow the majority to call for 
amendment. Hut the climax of anti-repnblican- 
ism is the provision that <; no alteration shall be 
made to affect the rights of property in the owner- 
ship of slaves:" a doctrine that would tumble into 
irretrievable ruin tin.' Federal Constitution, and 
the constitutions of half the States in the Union, 
including that of the gentleman's own State; for 
there is not one of these which does not contain 
as stringent and dilatory limitations as are found 
in this Kansas constitution. The argument by 
which he supports this view is, that the " Democ- 
racy, as taught in Ohio, believes in the repeal- 
ability of everything by the popular voice." Do 
the Democracy of Ohio consider the clauses of 
the Constitution securing all those great rights, 
such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, 
liberty of conscience, inviolability of property, 
repealable b}' the popular will? Do the Democracy 
of Ohio believe in the repeatability of that clause 
guarantying the right of a State to equality of 
representation in the Senate of the United States? 
This may be Democracy in Ohio; but I hope it 
is a Democracy confined to Ohio alone. It may 
be Republicanism, but it is not the constitutional 
republicanism of America; it is the red republi- 
canism of France. The very tenure by which 
the gentleman exercises the privilege of uttering 
these objections against the Kansas constitution, 
is an oath to support a Constitution liable to them 
all; a Constitution imposing the heaviest restric- 
tions on the power of amendment; a Constitution 
whose framers intended it, not as an instrument of 
power, but as an instrument of protection against 
power. 

It would be well for these gentlemen to consider 
when, and by whom, this particular mode of 
adopting a constitution, which they insist is the 
only true mode, was first established. It was not 
by the fathers of this Republic — the men of 177G. 
The Federal Constitution was not submitted for 
adoption to a direct vote of the people, nor were 
the constitutions of the Old Thirteen. The first in- 
stance in modern times, *so far as my researches 
go, was the constitution of 1799, which was sub- 
mitted to the people of France, and accepted by 
a vote of three million to fifteen hundred. This 
was in accordance with the teachings of Rous- 
seau — the doctrine of unlimited, indivisible, un- 
delegated power of the people — a doctrine almost 
identical in terms to that upon which the opposi- 
tion to the admission of Kansas rests. What was 
the result? The sovereignty of the people was 
established and recognized, the King was be- 
headed, the nobility were banished, the religion 
abolished, property confiscated, and France con- 
verted into one moral and political volcano, from 
the conflict of whose discordant elements arose 
tie; demon of centralization and military despot- 
ism, the rod of whose power smote down all the 
valuable rights of the people, and the cherished 
interests of humanity. It was during the prog- 
ress of this fanatical and bloody drama, that one 



of its most conspicuous and sanguinary actors, 
appalled by the magnitude of the power which 
he had invoked, exclaimed: ' Do you not see the 
project of appeal to the people tends but to destroy 
the representative body? It is sporting with the 
> majesty of the people, to return to it a 
work which it charges you to terminate prompt- 

The next constitution submitted to the people 
was the consular constitution of 18U2 — only three 
years later — making Napoleon Bonaparte consul 
forlifc,and conferringon him the power of naming 
his successor and the senate: in other words, a 
despotism. It was submitted to the vote of the 
of Prance, and accepted by 3,5CS,885 
against 8,374. And from that time, the unlimited 
sovereignly of the people has been the potent in- 
strument by which the Napoleons have fastened 
upon France a despotism more grinding and de- 
basing than that of the Autocrat of Russia. The 
fathers of our Republic proceeded on principles 
totally opposite. Adopting as a fundamental dog- 
ma that all political power springs from the peo- 
ple, they insisted and incorporated it into their 
organic law, that this power should not be un- 
limited and absolute. They accordingly estab- 
lished our grand system of representative Gov- 
ernment, with its checks, balances, guarantees, 
and organic laws — the noblest political institu- 
tion that adorns the pages of the history of civil- 
ization, and which experience has shown to be 
the only means of securing and diffusing among 
a people that broad, civil liberty which constitutes 
the distinguishing features of the American and 
British Governments. I say British Government; 
for the statesmen of 1776 founded our institutions, 
not upon Utopian theories, but upon those great 
fundamental principles of the common law inher- 
ited from our Saxon ancestors, which guarantied 
to English freemen the right of personal security, 
personal liberty, and private property, with their 
judicial safeguards and protecting forms, as in- 
violable and irrepealable by any power on earth. 

The convention in Kansas, having declared in 
their, fundamental law that the right of property 
in slaves, already existing, shall not be interfered 
with, has only given a constitutional sanction to 
a principle as old as the foundations of free govern- 
ment. And, sir, Congress is bound, by the most 
solemn obligation that honor can impose, to ad- 
mit her with this very clause in her constitution. 
Sir, \vp of the South demand the redemption of 
your pledge. The issue is boldly tendered, and 
we are ready to go before the great Areopagus of 
the American people upon it. And when the ene- 
mies of Kansas shall attempt to justify their op- 
position to her by invoking a principle which has 
deluged Europe in blood, only to sink her into 
more degraded despotism, we will justify her ad- 
mission upon the principles which lie at the foun- 
dation of our Republic. We will call upon the 
people to stand true to the traditions of our an- 
cestors and the practice of the Government when 
Washington was President and the men of, the 
Revolution ministered at the altars of liberty. 

One word upon the bill introduced into this 
House by a member from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
Banks,] calling another convention in Kansas, 
for the purpose of framing a second constitution, 
to be submitted to the people for acceptance or 
rejection. Mr. Chairman, Congress has no more 



LS ARY 0F CONGRES: 



8 



right to call a convention of the people in Kansas 
than it has the right to call such a convention in 
New York. By the act of Congress, and the ac- 
tion of her people, the entire relation of Kansas to 
this Government has been changed. It is no longer 
a Territory of these United States. She has, by 
your own authority and permission, thrown off 
the habiliments of territorial dependence, and 
6tands now a State, clothed with all the attributes 
and powers of a State, and asks admission as an 
equal in this noble confederation of sovereignties. 




You may reject her apj " 016 088 985 8 

it will be at your own peril. To remanu uc , „, 
her territorial condition you cannot, any more 
than you can roll back to their hidden sources the 
waters of the Mississippi. Kansas is a separate, 
organized, living State, with all the nerves and 
arteries of life in full development and vigorous 
activity. Between your laws and her people she 
can interpose the broad and radiant shield of State 
sovereignty, and may laugh to scorn your enabling 
acts. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



LIBRARY 



01 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



016 088 985 8 • 



